This is an interesting piece of legislation that re-affirms the rights of the States over the Supreme Court, among other things.

Click to expand...

(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Click to expand...

that is the one I've problems with, (the bolded).

Some states believe it or not, might have majorities that would institute a 'state church.' I don't like state defining family relations, dangerous ground, imo.

Some states believe it or not, might have majorities that would institute a 'state church.' I don't like state defining family relations, dangerous ground, imo.

Click to expand...

Well the Ohio Bill of Rights states:

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

Click to expand...

I'm sure all of the other state constitutions have similar sentiments. So regardless of whether there was some kind of official "state church" the people would still be free to attend any kind of church or religious organization that they chose.

I'm sure all of the other state constitutions have similar sentiments. So regardless of whether there was some kind of official "state church" the people would still be free to attend any kind of church or religious organization that they chose.

Click to expand...

If you don't see the problem here, I don't think there is a whole lot to discuss. I'm not being dismissive or trying to say anything bad, but for me, those are big problems, I don't trust the majority in this case.

I hope this is just a publicity stunt. This is a horrible idea. I don't like the idea of limiting the actions of a group of people just because some may be guilty of misconduct. The fact is, Congress already has the power to remove judges from the bench who are guilty of judicial misconduct. My advice to Congress is: If you think some judges are guilty of misconduct, get off your lazy asses, build a case against the individuals whom are guilty, and remove them from the bench. On a side note, I believe that Congress itself has been derelict in it's duty for years. They have not been an effective check or balance against the executive branch, and now some of these clowns want to weaken the judicial branch. That will leave us with one thing, an executive with no effective checks and balances standing in his way.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!